Would you rather have a high pick or remain competitive?

[Guy986]

Obviously the Rox would never intentionally tank the season away, i'm ust wondering where this board stands in this sensitive subject. For this team, competitive means hovering around .500 with the possibility of maybe getting the 8th seed. A high pick means a top 7 pick.

Are you a tanker? Or an anti-tanker?

[YaoZaii]

i rather not tank.

if this team shows it can do all the little things but yet still go down, it will be best for it may attract FA of 2010 to join us.

Tanking is bad for the team's morale and hurt the team's heart. I rather fight for a playoffs spot or go down fighting. No to tanking. Furthermore, fans deserve more.

[rocketsballin]

we'll get a lotta props if we can pull off the playoffs w/ tmac. tmac haters would start suckin dicks and we'd be happy as hell entering 2010 season. see how things go, then tank if we gots to

[Guy986]

i rather not tank.

if this team shows it can do all the little things but yet still go down, it will be best for it may attract FA of 2010 to join us.

Tanking is bad for the team's morale and hurt the team's heart. I rather fight for a playoffs spot or go down fighting. No to tanking. Furthermore, fans deserve more.

I'm of the opinion that team morale and team heart is overrated. Lets take the 05-06 Rockets for instance. Led by JVG, despite the team decimated by injury, the team fought every game. Without Yao or Tmac, the best player on the court back then was Juwan Howard. With a never say quit attitude and playoffs clearly out of reach, we even managed to beat playoffs team like the Denver Nuggets! Hows that for morale victory.(hello 8th pick, goodbye Brandon Roy)

Today, only one member of that 05-06 Rocket team is expected to be in the rotation come the first game of the regular season. Chuck Hayes.

[RoxFan08]

Definitely a top pick. The goal is to win a championship, not to be mediocre, which is by definition what a .500 team is.

This would be a tougher question if the other option was the team winning 55 games, because that is more nearly exceptional, and also likely makes the team a legit contender.

But since that isn't the case here a top pick can be used to rebuild (believe it or not, fans will still come to games if there are exciting you players who try hard and look to be improving whether they win or not), or to be parlayed into another asset, such as an all-star caliber player a la Ray Allen.

[moofs]

Habits are habits. Work habits are habits. Habits get built easily, and die hard.

Look at how well tanking's always worked for the Clippers and reconsider.
Tanking essentially throws the game on the floor, sets it on fire, defecates in the ashes, then tries to resell the whole mess at a 10% price hike.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: the goals of basketball is entertainment and revenue, not winning. If winning is the goal, it's set by the owner, for the owner. It can help drive entertainment, and entertainment drives revenue, but winning at all costs... well.. what do you think of Wall Street, bankers, and health care right now? If you really have this compulsive desire to dominate, stop trying to do it vicariously and start studying and working your [butt] off.

Consider this season nothing but a forced experiment and evidence of our GM's mastery, then sit back and enjoy the ride.

[tisbee]

Re: Would you rather have a high pick or remain competitive?
Yes.
Give me a Playoff Run,a high draft pick acquired via trade and a Superstar to go please.
Seriously,in 2004 the #5 and #7 were traded away,in 2006 the #7 was traded away,in 2007 the #5 and #8 were traded away,and this yr the #5 was traded away. In the past 6 Drafts,six top 8 picks were traded away for players.

I would much rather see the Rockets competitive as that would mean they weren't that far from being a contender. If they are a bottom feeding lottery team it means they have horribly misjudged their talent and its fit and they not only need Yao and a star but also a new supporting cast.

[Guy986]

Habits are habits. Work habits are habits. Habits get built easily, and die hard.

Look at how well tanking's always worked for the Clippers and reconsider.
Tanking essentially throws the game on the floor, sets it on fire, defecates in the ashes, then tries to resell the whole mess at a 10% price hike.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: the goals of basketball is entertainment and revenue, not winning. If winning is the goal, it's set by the owner, for the owner. It can help drive entertainment, and entertainment drives revenue, but winning at all costs... well.. what do you think of Wall Street, bankers, and health care right now? If you really have this compulsive desire to dominate, stop trying to do it vicariously and start studying and working your [butt] off.

Consider this season nothing but a forced experiment and evidence of our GM's mastery, then sit back and enjoy the ride.

[Guy986]

Re: Would you rather have a high pick or remain competitive?
Yes.
Give me a Playoff Run,a high draft pick acquired via trade and a Superstar to go please.
Seriously,in 2004 the #5 and #7 were traded away,in 2006 the #7 was traded away,in 2007 the #5 and #8 were traded away,and this yr the #5 was traded away. In the past 6 Drafts,six top 8 picks were traded away for players.

I would much rather see the Rockets competitive as that would mean they weren't that far from being a contender. If they are a bottom feeding lottery team it means they have horribly misjudged their talent and its fit and they not only need Yao and a star but also a new supporting cast.

How do you propose we get those high draft picks? By trading Aaron Brooks and Luis Scola? Because those guys are the only assets we have that is valued high enough to get a top ten pick.

[YaoZaii]

i rather not tank.

if this team shows it can do all the little things but yet still go down, it will be best for it may attract FA of 2010 to join us.

Tanking is bad for the team's morale and hurt the team's heart. I rather fight for a playoffs spot or go down fighting. No to tanking. Furthermore, fans deserve more.

I'm of the opinion that team morale and team heart is overrated. Lets take the 05-06 Rockets for instance. Led by JVG, despite the team decimated by injury, the team fought every game. Without Yao or Tmac, the best player on the court back then was Juwan Howard. With a never say quit attitude and playoffs clearly out of reach, we even managed to beat playoffs team like the Denver Nuggets! Hows that for morale victory.(hello 8th pick, goodbye Brandon Roy)

Today, only one member of that 05-06 Rocket team is expected to be in the rotation come the first game of the regular season. Chuck Hayes.

okay, so what's your point? that we should tank?

[tisbee]

Guy986,
That's why Morey gets the big bucks.
OTOH,Mike Miller and Randy Foye were enough for the #5 this yr. Phoenix traded the #7 in 2004 for a second and a future protected First and Wash traded the #5 for Jamison that yr. In 2005 Boston traded the #7 for Telfaire,Ratliff and a future second. In 2007 Boston traded the #5 for Ray Allen and Charlotte traded the #8 for Jason Richardson.
So yeah,I think it's possible the Rockets could put together a package for a top pick.

For example,NJ has their own and Dallas First in 2010 and prob the most cap room of anybody. They currently need a PF and a SF. Should they think they're signing LeBron,Scola or Battier would look a heck of lot better than a rookie. What if they don't believe they'll get a top FA? They may trade a high lottery pick for a bunch of young talented players to fill out the roster. They might well take a Landry,Budinger(heresy I know) and Dorsey/Pops and the Rockets middling pick for their low First.
Utah has the Knicks 2010 and we know they like Scola. Suppose they offer Milsap and the NY First for Scola and Landry?

If Andersen shows he can be a solid NBA player,possible starter,then yes,Scola is expendable. It depends on who the pick would be. Would you trade Scola for a #8 pick that turned out to be Brandon Roy? No brainer. But would you trade Scola for anybody who was available in this yrs draft at the #8? I wouldn't. So it depends.

[Guy986]

Guy986,
That's why Morey gets the big bucks.

Can't argue with that.

OTOH,Mike Miller and Randy Foye were enough for the #5 this yr.

For comparison's sake, Randy Foye had a much better year than Aaron Brooks in the 08-09 campaign. Foye shot a better %, had more assists and scored 5 more points per game than Brooks. Neither of them are true point guards but both of them are young players with potentials. As for Mike Miller, plenty of fans on this board advocated trading Battier for him straight up. Lets say based on their stellar playoff performance, Battier and Brooks are worth more than Foye and Miller. HOWEVER, the Wolves also had to take on Songalia's bad contract just to get the Wizard's approval. Battier + Brooks is roughly equal to Miller + Foye plus taking on bad contract. Wouldn't you agree? I don't know about you but i would rather have Battier, Brooks AND a top 5 pick. The only way to get that to work is through tanking the lottery.

Phoenix traded the #7 in 2004 for a second and a future protected First and Wash traded the #5 for Jamison that yr. In 2005 Boston traded the #7 for Telfaire,Ratliff and a future second. In 2007 Boston traded the #5 for Ray Allen and Charlotte traded the #8 for Jason Richardson.
So yeah,I think it's possible the Rockets could put together a package for a top pick.

Ray Allen was a multitime allstar still in his prime when he was traded for the 5th pick. Jamison and Richarson were proven 20+ point scorers. On this rocket team, we neither have stars(that are healthy) nor proven 20+ point scorers(that are healthy). As for Phoenix, their stupidity is well documented. I think they're the exception rather than the rule.

For example,NJ has their own and Dallas First in 2010 and prob the most cap room of anybody. They currently need a PF and a SF. Should they think they're signing LeBron,Scola or Battier would look a heck of lot better than a rookie. What if they don't believe they'll get a top FA? They may trade a high lottery pick for a bunch of young talented players to fill out the roster. They might well take a Landry,Budinger(heresy I know) and Dorsey/Pops and the Rockets middling pick for their low First.

I think Landry + Budinger + Dorsey + middle pick for a top 5 pick is plausible. But i rather have Landry, Budinger, Dorsey and top 5 pick.

Utah has the Knicks 2010 and we know they like Scola. Suppose they offer Milsap and the NY First for Scola and Landry?

Negative. This trade is unrealistic. Millsap is younger and already considered to be better than Scola. Sure Utah likes Scola. But they also like Millsap enough to give him 9 million a year. Scola and Landry for Millsap and NY pick is wishful thinking.

If Andersen shows he can be a solid NBA player,possible starter,then yes,Scola is expendable. It depends on who the pick would be. Would you trade Scola for a #8 pick that turned out to be Brandon Roy? No brainer. But would you trade Scola for anybody who was available in this yrs draft at the #8? I wouldn't. So it depends.

Even Brandon Roy wasn't considered a can't miss prospect. He was said to be a jack of all trade, master of none type role player who would be able to step in and help immediately. I mean he was picked 6th in a relatively weak draft afterall. The draft is unpredictable. That's why they call it a lottery. But i trust Morey's eye for talent. I would trade Scola for a top 6 pick even if the player isnt a sure thing. But as i've said many times, i would rather have Scola AND the top 6 pick.

[tisbee]

Guy986,
I guess we agree to disagree. I understand your view and in the abstract I wouldn't be too bummed if that's what happened.
But to tank the Rockets would have to keep McGrady off the court. They'd have to severely restrict Scola's minutes. And most of all to fully tank-because there are going to be some really bad teams out there-none of the young players are going to show they can make plays when it counts. Brooks can't make plays down the stretch,Budinger can't shoot in the clutch,Taylor can't score in the NBA,Andersen gets pushed around,Ariza is a one-hit wonder and nobody can play defense.
And if that happens the Rockets are back where they were when T-Mac joined the team. The supporting cast was so bad that if McGrady didn't play the Rockets lost. We've seen no matter how good a player is(LeBron,Wade),w/out the right supporting cast they can't contend.
I'd rather the team play well,get into the Playoffs as that would show the team is close,whereas a team bad enough to get a high lottery pick is going to need a lot more help.

Not to split hairs,but Miller is coming off a very poor season and Foye was a huge disappointment,it's not like they were coming off great seasons when their value would have been high. Richardson,Telfaire,Ratliff were hardly All-Stars,w/Richardson being traded after an injury plagued season. Allen was on the down side of his career. None of these players w/exception of Allen were consistant All-Stars. My point is teams have been willing to trade top picks for good players,not holding out for great ones.

The wild card in all this is are teams going to be so financially whipped that they will be willing to trade a high draft pick and a bad contract for cash and some cheaper,younger players and a middling First?

[Ribalding]

Too soon to answer the question.

Morey's got 17.5 guys under contract. So moves have yet to be made. Once they are, I'll chime in.

[bballmaniac27]

No tanking. If we suck next season then so be it but we should try to win every game. If we start tanking I'm not going to waste my time watching.

[moofs]

^ more simply put. What's the point in watching and/or paying to watch deliberately bad basketball?

Who's the .5?

[Guy986]

^ more simply put. What's the point in watching and/or paying to watch deliberately bad basketball?

Who's the .5?

I was about to ask the same question.

I'm guessing brent barry?